Obama Without a Teleprompter!

[Rey C.]

Yes, we are all prone to gaffs.

Does Obama have a basic command of the facts? Depends of who who ask, and what the 'facts' are.

Would you 'destroy' the 'Idiot Queens?' I doubt you could with them drunk and you sober.

To be fair, it would depend on the subject. I don't know as much as they do about Twitter or Facebook (never signed on to either). And they probably know a lot more than I do about which heels go with which dress (whatever makes me smile MUST be good, the way I see it). And Bachmann should have more than decent knowledge of accounting and IRS regulations... but who knows what her brain remembers? And they both probably know more about the Bible than I do (not something I'm proud of - but it is what it is). I would say that Bachmann possesses greater intellect than Palin (by far). But I don't think that I would have any problems delivering an old fashioned, panties-around-the-ankles ass whoopin' to either of these dolts, if the subject was economics, business, geography or history (American or ancient). Basic, standard English also seems to trip them up quite frequently.

Let's just assume (since the country is in rather dire economic straits now) that the subject was economics. I'm not convinced that either of these "winners" could even give a basic explanation of fiscal versus monetary policy, or how various economic theories would/should work. Palin, at least as much as Bachmann, just seems to repeat (prepared) talking points... much like a parrot would. Palin didn't even know the duties of the Vice President in 2008! And poor Bachmann thought that the Smoot-Hawley Act was the Hoot-Smalley Act and that they were Democrats! She thought that FDR signed "Hoot/Smalley" into law! See, that's not a gaffe. That's a combination of ignorance mixed with prideful stupidity. That's walking into a situation with a conclusion in hand, and they try to fill in the blanks to support it after the fact. I fire people who do that. And I've never regretted that even once.

One might love Bachmann and Palin to death, and wish that they'd become the 2012 GOP Dream Team. But these are not overly intelligent people. Their backgrounds, their public displays and their manner of speech tell the tale. They're not learning disabled. But let's not suggest that they're anything much above (barely) average intelligence.

Face Obama without a telepromter? I'd say I could do that. While you may not believe me, I think I'm doing pretty good pulling things from my memory and articulating my points on the fly.

Somehow you've managed to convince yourself that he can't form a complete thought without a teleprompter. I think the fellow from Harvard Law would rip you a bleeding new one. Nothing against you, it's just that from what I've seen of him, you (and most anyone else I've encountered, including myself) would be way out of your league. As I said previously, at the GOP luncheon earlier this year, he had no teleprompter and he had no problems handling the situation quite well. I'm a big guy. But I would know (even now) not to challenge Mike Tyson to a fist fight. Age and experience have given me a pretty good idea of who can and who cannot knock me out. Maybe someday. But I don't sense that you're quite ready for Obama just yet. :hatsoff:

Comparing the 'teleprompter thing' to the 'Birther thing?' Do you remember who started that? It was the Clinton Camp, and so what if some people have doubts about his citizenship? He didn't exactly help matters by waiting so long, now did he? The telepromter thing is to the right, what was calling GWB an idiot was to the left.

I'll have to try to find it again, but a site I visited last year actually compared Obama's use of the teleprompter with Reagan's. Turns out Reagan was just as prone to use the teleprompter as Obama. What does that mean? Absolutely nothing! It was a non-issue with him as well. Anyone who has ever delivered a relatively lengthy speech knows that you either memorize every word, you read from printed words on the lectern or you use a teleprompter. Very few people have the skill (or the gift of memory) that allows them to memorize a long speech. Most people either read from paper or a teleprompter (or write the words on your hand like my gal Sarah P@lin). The teleprompter simply allows a person to make eye contact with the audience and not be looking up and down every few seconds. This only seems to be an issue with those who never took public speaking in school or have never had to give a speech to a group.

To your point about the talking points, both sides do that.

True. And as long as there is at least a shred of validity to the talking points, I can't take issue with either side. But the hyperbole and childish rants of the past 2-3 years have been out of this world. I well remember how Reagan and Tip O'Neill dealt with each other many years ago. There were barbs, but there was no doubt that adults were still in the room. I no longer have that feeling. What we have now is not productive, and yes, it is childish and it is harming the nation.

 

[ban-one]

This is the single most funny thing I have ever read on this site.

Thank you, kind sir. :hatsoff:

You don't think I could?

 

[ban-one]

Valid point.

There is always an element of "If you aint with us, you're against us." out there.

Tough for me to compare Bachmann and Obama evenly.

http://www.thebachmannrecord.com/thebachmannrecoc.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wX1UnAtynU

I'm an Independent as well. I was a Republican until 2003 when Bush invaded Iraq.

It is tough to support a candidate that refutes science.

I have news for you. Many, many people do not believe the theory of evolution because it can't explain everything (Like we all came from a few chemicals in some bubbling ooze that some how came together to make life? If that were true, shouldn't we be able to reproduce that in a lab?), or in the theory of man-made global warming.

And by the way, 'global warming' is now 'climate change' because they waffled on whether it would be warmer or colder for decades (which is another reason we're skeptical, not to mention they can't get the short-range weather forecast right, so we're to believe they can over a hundred years?), so they just gave up and said "it'll change," but of course the climate changes. It's been doing that for millions of years. That's what it does. It was warmer when there were dinosaurs, colder when we first came onto this planet (Ice Age, wooly mammoth, saber tooth tiger, any of these ring a bell?) Then it got warmer, enough so that Greenland was green, then it got cold again, and the Vikings left. How do you think all that climate change happened? A few million humans with their camp fires? And have you ever heard of the year without a summer? Caused by a volcanic eruption that put more crap into the air than we ever could. And you know that big glowing thing in the sky? It has alot to do with the temperature of the planet.

And one more thing, it takes one helluva ego and a vast amount of arrogance to truly believe that humans can significantly alter a planet’s climate and cause significant damage to the environment, especially using things that came from and exist naturally in the very planet and environment in question. Short of a nuclear war, there’s no way humans can significantly affect a planet’s climate. And even then, it’ll just be temporary and the vast majority of the people and all the other life forms will survive. It sure as hell ain’t gonna happen from anything we piddling humans can do, or cause with the living of our lives.

And I have a word for you 'lemming.' Look it up, because it applies to those following 'man-made climate change' because it is not about saving the planet. It is about people like Al Gore getting richer and redistributing the wealth, while the rest of us 'little people' give up our better lives of living more comfortably, having more food, and having conveniences. The very things they wanna us get rid of, but not them, oh, no.

 

[Supafly]

There is such a thing as a difference between one theory that has some details to be cleared up and a theory that encloses details as humans riding dinosaurs 4000 years ago.

The further you guys try to push this, the funnier things get

 

[emceeemcee]

And one more thing, it takes one helluva ego and a vast amount of arrogance to truly believe that humans can significantly alter a planet’s climate and cause significant damage to the environment, especially using things that came from and exist naturally in the very planet and environment in question. Short of a nuclear war, there’s no way humans can significantly affect a planet’s climate.

is that your opinion as someone who spends time reading climate journals and completed a pHd in the field?


It's possible, of course, that you and everyone else who thinks like you might be right and are the only ones in command of all the scientific facts on the matter. It's also possible that you might just be another borderline simpleton who doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[accountantNOT]

Well you can blame the OP for that, because as i said, that's what was shown in the video. It cuts off at that point. What can I say, kudos for taking the time to search the internet in an attempt to save your beloved moron to prove his comment was only mildly stupid, not totally stupid.

If you were paying attention then you would have noticed that the video in the OP was misrepresented/distorted/deceptively edited, none of what Obama said was remotely 'stupid' as you would like to paint it. Nice try though.

The point is, a republican says something stupid, they are mocked and ridiculed. Obama, the President, says something stupid and you say, "nuh-uh, you're stupid." That's not hypocrisy of the left?

Ever heard of Joe Biden? He is a Republican, right?

Do you have an excuse for everything else he said too?

Excuse? I called out the bullshit as I saw it, if anything he should apologize for posting such a disingenuous video.

The fact that Bachmann has said something as stupid, or even more stupid, that does not make Obama less stupid. No, they're BOTH stupid. To say one is and the other isn't is biased.

Here comes another round of false equivalencies. First, Obama's words were deceptively edited in order to draw a false equivalence to Bachmann's. Now when that didn't stick, suddenly BOTH are stupid.

I'm getting sick of people thinking I'm right-wing because I don't like Obama. I'm an Independent. I find both left and right sides to be half blind. Not everything is black and white. Fucking trolls.

You meant to say 'Centrist' since being an independent is a partisan position and not an idealogical one (left/right) - you can be right-wing and an 'independent' at the same time.

And maybe if you weren't copy pasting bullshit from sites like free-republic without any clue about its truthfulness then maybe others would see you as a 'centrist' too. Fucking liars with their phony outrage.

 

[accountantNOT]

I have news for you. Many, many people do not believe the theory of evolution because it can't explain everything (Like we all came from a few chemicals in some bubbling ooze that some how came together to make life? If that were true, shouldn't we be able to reproduce that in a lab?), or in the theory of man-made global warming.

But these same people are very eager to believe in the 'theory of intelligent design'. :rofl2:

And by the way, 'global warming' is now 'climate change' because they waffled on whether it would be warmer or colder for decades (which is another reason we're skeptical, not to mention they can't get the short-range weather forecast right, so we're to believe they can over a hundred years?), so they just gave up and said "it'll change," but of course the climate changes. It's been doing that for millions of years. That's what it does. It was warmer when there were dinosaurs, colder when we first came onto this planet (Ice Age, wooly mammoth, saber tooth tiger, any of these ring a bell?) Then it got warmer, enough so that Greenland was green, then it got cold again, and the Vikings left. How do you think all that climate change happened? A few million humans with their camp fires? And have you ever heard of the year without a summer? Caused by a volcanic eruption that put more crap into the air than we ever could. And you know that big glowing thing in the sky? It has alot to do with the temperature of the planet.

An avalanche of bullshit talking points that have been debunked over and over.

Try this for a start.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

 

[ban-one]

This is the same right that's promulgated such an avalanche of lies and distortions about the president there are about three pages of them listed at snopes.

This is the same right who's mindless minions perpetually parrot these same lies and distortions even after they've been thoroughly debunked; in some instances years after.

The same right that gets much of their "news" from viral emails, and much of the rest from whores like Beck, Levin, Hannity et al, who's pay scale essentially depends on the degree of fear and dissension they're able to stir up.

The same right that claims the president is a non-citizen, anti-american, muslim marxist.

too damn funny :1orglaugh

Mmm. That's funny too. And prey tell, what lies and distortions would that be?

As for 'mindless minions' perpetually parroting the same lies and distortions even after they've been thoroughly debunked; in some instances years after, I submit to you that this happens on the left with far more regularity. I would also submit to you that you are doing what you are accusing others of doing. You file that under hypocrisy or is it just because you're on the left is doesn't count?

As for Beck, Levin, Hannity(who I would submit to you is alittle liberal for my taste, been in NYC too long) and others (you left out the big boy, Rush), what fear are they stirring up? That Obama and the Democrats are wrecking our country? I believe many Democrats held the same view of GWB and the Republicans when they were in charge.

Also, calling people names ('mindless minions' and 'whores') is a real good way of showing people that you can't argue your side, and thus we should not take you seriously.

And as for 'dissension,' I believe a certain Democrat said that she is sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration. All it needed was the Howard Dean scream at the end. But joking aside, she is right.

Non-citizen? Well, for starters, I'd again point to to Hillary Clinton. Her camp started that. However, Obama didn't help matters by waiting so long.

Anti-American? Well, to those of us who have a different view of America, yes, yes, he is.

Muslim? Don't know what's in his heart. He did screw up once and say he was, and then a reporter had to correct him.

Marxist? Where to begin. Well, he does wanna tax people exorbitantly to then give that money to others with less money. Make everyone all even. 'Everyone' except the liberal elite that is. They can keep their money. And on a side note, most people on the right who say Obama is a 'Marxist' or 'socialist' think the shoe fits, and is descriptive of him based on his words and actions. It is not a slur like so many on the left believe it to be (or even proudly proclaim to be), unlike the baseless slurs hurled at us. Can you say 'Nazi,' 'cause we get called that alot. (And if someone uses that one for the US right, well, they don't know the difference between the European and US political spectrum very well and are only showing their own ignorance. Because if they really knew, and hell proof of where the Nazi party really lies in the political spectrum is in their party's full name so it's not that hard to figure out, they would not use 'Nazi' for the US right, because the shoe most definitely does not fit.)

Yes, too damn funny indeed.

 

[accountantNOT]

Muslim? Don't know what's in his heart. He did screw up once and say he was, and then a reporter had to correct him.

Try again

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslimfaith.asp

Marxist? Where to begin. Well, he does wanna tax people exorbitantly to then give that money to others with less money.

Taxes are at its lowest in 60 years. But don't get facts ruin a perfectly good lie.

Plus his proposed tax plan is lower for most of the taxpayers while returning the top bracket to Clinton era rates.

Meanwhile, another Marxist called Reagan was in love with increasing taxes too.

Yes, too damn funny indeed.

You can say that again.

 

[Hot Mega]

Getting back to the original point about Obama and the teleprompter:

While some of us poke fun about his over-use of the teleprompter, it does seem to symbolize a certain lack of authenticity in the man. He's disturbingly one-tone, one note all the time. Even when he's NOT using a teleprompter, he still sounds like he's using one. I have difficulty in believing a president or any kind of leader can empathize with his people if he shows almost no human feeling. Even when he says he's upset/angry/pleased about something, he still SOUNDS EXACTLY THE SAME.
For example, a few weeks ago he was giving a nice speech during a Medal of Honor award ceremony. The words were eloquent and nicely delivered -- but Obama's words lacked any and all sense of FEELING the moment. You couldn't tell the difference if had been reading his grocery list. There he was, lauding this soldier's heroism and recounting his heroic deeds, and there was no change in Obama's emotion, tone, expression. It comes across as unfeeling. Like Mr. Spock. It's unsettling.

I addressed this in another post about Obama's style of speaking. He's not a dramatic speaker like Reagan who seized every opportunity to emphasize the high points. But then again, Reagan should have been since he was an experienced actor well versed in delivering the dramatic.

Or like Clinton who had the ability to connect with people in a 'Southern Comfort' way irrespective of the issue.

Obama is just mechanical when it comes to speaking policy. However, he's quite effective to objective observer when it comes to speaking on issues the average person can empathize with.

He will NEVER be able to deliver a speech...even if it's about smoking the most wanted man in American history to throngs of cheering people that will be more than panned.

Sober issues like that he appears loathe to turn into a rally while in circumstance which require inspiration he's at his best. That's one of the reasons he's president today.

I think though if he does make light of sober issues ala GWB at GZ...the same GOPers who cheered GWB would be cursing the day O was born for doing it.

Either way in some cases it matters more...in some cases it matters less how something is said. I just care about what they do (or don't do).

 

[ban-one]

To be fair, it would depend on the subject. I don't know as much as they do about Twitter or Facebook (never signed on to either). And they probably know a lot more than I do about which heels go with which dress (whatever makes me smile MUST be good, the way I see it). And Bachmann should have more than decent knowledge of accounting and IRS regulations... but who knows what her brain remembers? And they both probably know more about the Bible than I do (not something I'm proud of - but it is what it is). I would say that Bachmann possesses greater intellect than Palin (by far). But I don't think that I would have any problems delivering an old fashioned, panties-around-the-ankles ass whoopin' to either of these dolts, if the subject was economics, business, geography or history (American or ancient). Basic, standard English also seems to trip them up quite frequently.

Let's just assume (since the country is in rather dire economic straits now) that the subject was economics. I'm not convinced that either of these "winners" could even give a basic explanation of fiscal versus monetary policy, or how various economic theories would/should work. Palin, at least as much as Bachmann, just seems to repeat (prepared) talking points... much like a parrot would. Palin didn't even know the duties of the Vice President in 2008! And poor Bachmann thought that the Smoot-Hawley Act was the Hoot-Smalley Act and that they were Democrats! She thought that FDR signed "Hoot/Smalley" into law! See, that's not a gaffe. That's a combination of ignorance mixed with prideful stupidity. That's walking into a situation with a conclusion in hand, and they try to fill in the blanks to support it after the fact. I fire people who do that. And I've never regretted that even once.

One might love Bachmann and Palin to death, and wish that they'd become the 2012 GOP Dream Team. But these are not overly intelligent people. Their backgrounds, their public displays and their manner of speech tell the tale. They're not learning disabled. But let's not suggest that they're anything much above (barely) average intelligence.

You're right that it would depend on the subject, and you might be able to get the upper hand on a few issues, but not all of them. As for their intelligence, that's your opinion, and I have mine about them and others that may, and probably, don't agree with yours. And do you really wanna get into their backgrounds? Are you sure you wanna go down that road, given Obama's?

Somehow you've managed to convince yourself that he can't form a complete thought without a teleprompter. I think the fellow from Harvard Law would rip you a bleeding new one. Nothing against you, it's just that from what I've seen of him, you (and most anyone else I've encountered, including myself) would be way out of your league. As I said previously, at the GOP luncheon earlier this year, he had no teleprompter and he had no problems handling the situation quite well. I'm a big guy. But I would know (even now) not to challenge Mike Tyson to a fist fight. Age and experience have given me a pretty good idea of who can and who cannot knock me out. Maybe someday. But I don't sense that you're quite ready for Obama just yet. :hatsoff:

No, I think he can form a complete thought without a teleprompter. The problem is, alot of the time he winds up saying something he didn't mean to, and that lots of people don't agree with. As for 'ripping me a bleeding new one,' he might in some areas of law, but I think I'd be able to hold my own enough to certainly make it interesting, and I know I have no where near the formal education he has. And as for comparing taking on Obama on issues to fighting Mike Tyson, one has the worst outcome of you're embarrassed, the other leaves you on life support(at best). As for if I'm ready to take on Obama, that's my opinion, and I may or may not be wrong. We'd never know unless it happened. However, I would say he has the edge for the fact he is a politician and has plenty of experience talking in front of cameras and people that I do not.

True. And as long as there is at least a shred of validity to the talking points, I can't take issue with either side. But the hyperbole and childish rants of the past 2-3 years have been out of this world. I well remember how Reagan and Tip O'Neill dealt with each other many years ago. There were barbs, but there was no doubt that adults were still in the room. I no longer have that feeling. What we have now is not productive, and yes, it is childish and it is harming the nation.

I agree with all of that, except I would maybe go back a few more years, but that's me.

 

[ban-one]

There is such a thing as a difference between one theory that has some details to be cleared up and a theory that encloses details as humans riding dinosaurs 4000 years ago.

The further you guys try to push this, the funnier things get

What theory has us riding dinosaurs 4000 years ago?

 

[ragincaucasian]

i dunno about his "flat delivery" (again this is petty, pedantic criticism of an elected official - who the fuck cares?).....his speech in Philadelphia 2008 kicked plenty of ass

 

[Hot Mega]

What theory has us riding dinosaurs 4000 years ago?

:condom:

 

[ban-one]

is that your opinion as someone who spends time reading climate journals and completed a pHd in the field?


It's possible, of course, that you and everyone else who thinks like you might be right and are the only ones in command of all the scientific facts on the matter. It's also possible that you might just be another borderline simpleton who doesn't know what he's talking about.

That is my opinion as someone who has looked at what has changed our planet's climate in its history, as history is our guide to the future. They are all large things. Changes in the sun's activity, volcanic eruptions, and collisions with comets and asteroids. Not small things like people riding around in their SUVs, and it does take a large ego and lots of arrogance to believe we could alter our planet's climate by incidence, when we couldn't really do it if we tried.

Oh, and something I forgot in the other. You know CO2, that gas they say is hurting things? Flashback to your elementary school days and see if you remember that plants take in CO2 and convert it into oxygen for us to breath through a little process called photosynthesis. The more CO2, the better plants like it, the more and better they'll grow, and the more food we can have.

Now does that sound like a 'borderline simpleton who doesn't know what he's talking about?'

Next, you'll be telling me I'm a 'flat Earther' for not believing. So, I'll save you the trouble, and go ahead and shoot that one down too. If you'll recall from history class, the theory that the Earth is flat was the popular and widely-held scientific belief at the time, just like with 'man-made climate change' here in our time. Didn't make it true. Those who didn't believe it, or spoke out, were belittled and mocked, or worse, just like those of us who don't believe in 'man-made climate change.' So to equate those who do not subscribe to 'man-made climate change' to 'flat Earthers' is sorta like the pot calling the fire engine black. It just doesn't work.

 

[KillTheIndustry]

Ever heard of Joe Biden? He is a Republican, right?

:wtf: He's the Vice President, a Democrat, and also known to say stupid things occasionally... What's your point?

Saying there are 57 states with one to go, that was from deceptive editing? :1orglaugh There are plenty of other stupid statements made in that video. Go ahead and find excuses for all of them.

Sorry, there is no excuse for ridiculing one person over a gaffe, then defending another over one. Not when the excuses are equally invalid. It's biased and hypocritical. You can make up all the excuses you want, but people can do the same for Bachmann, Bush, and everyone else. But I'm sure you would call them idiots for doing so. So this is me calling you an idiot for being just as bad as a Bachmann defender.

We have so many threads each dedicated to a single stupid statement made, with the intent of proving the lack of intelligence in that person. If saying something stupid makes a person stupid, then Obama is stupid. If it doesn't make them stupid, and it's just a slip of the tongue, then those types of threads really need to stop, because they only serve to highlight how one-sided, biased, and hypocritical most people are in this forum.

 

[accountantNOT]

:wtf: He's the Vice President, a Democrat, and also known to say stupid things occasionally... What's your point?

Occasionally? He is a perpetual gaffe machine.

And, you made the point, I am just highlighting it.

The point is, a republican says something stupid, they are mocked and ridiculed. Obama, the President, says something stupid and you say, "nuh-uh, you're stupid." That's not hypocrisy of the left?

Saying there are 57 states with one to go, that was from deceptive editing? :1orglaugh There are plenty of other stupid statements made in that video. Go ahead and find excuses for all of them.

And how many of them are complete fabrications like the last one I caught?

Sorry, there is no excuse for ridiculing one person over a gaffe, then defending another over one. Not when the excuses are equally invalid. It's biased and hypocritical. You can make up all the excuses you want, but people can do the same for Bachmann, Bush, and everyone else. But I'm sure you would call them idiots for doing so. So this is me calling you an idiot for being just as bad as a Bachmann defender.

Except that with Bachmann and Bush, it's not just their gaffes - they make a lot of intentional dumb statements (I could make a list if you want) . How many are calling Romney, Huntsman, Ron Paul, Pawlenty, Mcconell etc etc as idiots for their gaffes? That's right, hardly anyone.

We have so many threads each dedicated to a single stupid statement made, with the intent of proving the lack of intelligence in that person. If saying something stupid makes a person stupid, then Obama is stupid. If it doesn't make them stupid, and it's just a slip of the tongue, then those types of threads really need to stop, because they only serve to highlight how one-sided, biased, and hypocritical most people are in this forum.

Sure but those threads might have some substance unlike this one which was based off a total lie with a deceptively edited video. So if it was about standards and hypocrisy then one doesn't have to look beyond the original post.

 

[Hot Mega]

That is my opinion as someone who has looked at what has changed our planet's climate in its history, as history is our guide to the future. They are all large things.

"looked at" or studied? There is a HUUUUUUGE difference and this is actually where eggheadism is useful.

Changes in the sun's activity, volcanic eruptions, and collisions with comets and asteroids. Not small things like people riding around in their SUVs, and it does take a large ego and lots of arrogance to believe we could alter our planet's climate by incidence, when we couldn't really do it if we tried.

Re: 'Not small things'.... How many more automobiles are on the planet as compared to when there were none? Not such a small thing now eh?:o

Think about that ban...

Oh, and something I forgot in the other. You know CO2, that gas they say is hurting things? Flashback to your elementary school days and see if you remember that plants take in CO2 and convert it into oxygen for us to breath through a little process called photosynthesis. The more CO2, the better plants like it, the more and better they'll grow, and the more food we can have.

True...and you'd have an utter point if we were just talking about the ecosystem in your home. But doesn't the macro issue have something to do with the combination of much more CO2 and the shrinking size of the rain forest these days or something??:dunno: I admit I'm fairly ignorant on details of climate control/warming.

Now does that sound like a 'borderline simpleton who doesn't know what he's talking about?'

Next, you'll be telling me I'm a 'flat Earther' for not believing. So, I'll save you the trouble, and go ahead and shoot that one down too. If you'll recall from history class, the theory that the Earth is flat was the popular and widely-held scientific belief at the time, just like with 'man-made climate change' here in our time. Didn't make it true. Those who didn't believe it, or spoke out, were belittled and mocked, or worse, just like those of us who don't believe in 'man-made climate change.' So to equate those who do not subscribe to 'man-made climate change' to 'flat Earthers' is sorta like the pot calling the fire engine black. It just doesn't work.

But believing a myth like the world being flat does no harm so they are not really analogous circumstances. Right?

 

[KillTheIndustry]

Occasionally? He is a perpetual gaffe machine.

And, you made the point, I am just highlighting it.

I see. But how often is he mocked here? That's right, hardly ever. I can't even remember a single instance of someone mocking Biden on this forum.

And how many of them are complete fabrications like the last one I caught?

You tell me. The rest seem legitimately stupid.

Except that with Bachmann and Bush, it's not just their gaffes - they make a lot of intentional dumb statements (I could make a list if you want) . How many are calling Romney, Huntsman, Ron Paul, Pawlenty, Mcconell etc etc as idiots for their gaffes? That's right, hardly anyone.

Romney had his own mocking thread just last week. And you think their gaffes are "intentional"?

Sure but those threads might have some substance unlike this one which was based off a total lie with a deceptively edited video. So if it was about standards and hypocrisy then one doesn't have to look beyond the original post.

Again, the rest of the stupid statements seem to be legitimately stupid. Shall we make an individual thread for each one like the leftists keep doing?

 

[emceeemcee]

That is my opinion as someone who has looked at what has changed our planet's climate in its history, as history is our guide to the future. They are all large things. Changes in the sun's activity, volcanic eruptions, and collisions with comets and asteroids. Not small things like people riding around in their SUVs, and it does take a large ego and lots of arrogance to believe we could alter our planet's climate by incidence, when we couldn't really do it if we tried.

Oh, and something I forgot in the other. You know CO2, that gas they say is hurting things? Flashback to your elementary school days and see if you remember that plants take in CO2 and convert it into oxygen for us to breath through a little process called photosynthesis. The more CO2, the better plants like it, the more and better they'll grow, and the more food we can have.

Now does that sound like a 'borderline simpleton who doesn't know what he's talking about?'

Yes, it does actually.


Oxygen is required for life as well yet too much can kill you. That should give you some idea about what a mistake it is to draw simplistic conclusions.


The only arrogance I see is coming from people who dismiss as junk, data which has been professionally scrutinized while they refuse to allow anyone to scrutinize theirs. What makes them so special that they don't have to apply the same rules to their work as everybody else does?

I'll take my science out of the journals, not from think tank warriors and snake oil salesman who are being paid by big oil/coal/gas and refuse to try and get their pet theories published or present them at scientific conferences.